Aziz S. AtiyaEDITOR IN CHIEF

Volume 8

Macmillan Publishing CompanyNEW 'lOR/(

Collier Macmillan CanadaTORONTO

.Maxwell Macmillan InternationalNEW 'IORK· OXFORD· SINGAPORE· SYDNEY

32 ALPHABETS, COPTIC

I'ROffiDli\LECT) and then in the Coptic alphabets, inwhich (s:.wc fur the exceplion in DIAl.ECT II; cr. \)e·low) the total of graphemes of Greek origin re·mained stable, but the number of graphemes uf au­tuchthonous origin was gradually reduced: S, themost neutral Coptic idiom, ha.~ only six (qt, 'I, 2, oX, G,

t), and H, the mOSI eeollomieal MEl"ADIALE.'.CT of all(pro\)a\)ly twenty.three graphemes altogether; cf, S,with thirty, and P, with as many .IS thirty·five), hasno more than four signs derived from demotic, 11,1, a,:x:, and G, di.~pensing with the two autochthonousgmphemes 'I (> ,) and t ( > TI), as it also does inprinciple whh no fewer lhan three Greek graph.emes, r· ( > 11.), ~ ( > Ke), and t (> lie), not 10 speakof two Olhcrs whose usc is considerably r'estricted, 0

( > III) and y ( > II), both excluded except in thecombination (o)y fOI· luI antI /w/.

IIIBLlOGRAl'nY

Barns, J. W. B. "Egyptians and Greeks," Papyro/ugicaBruxellensia 14 (1978):1-23,

Bataille, A. Les Memllmriu: Recherches de papyrolo{!,ieel d'epi{!,raphie greeques sur lu necropofe cle faThi!bes d'!1f;Yp/e aux i!poques hellcnis/iques e/

WI/wines, C:.iro, 1':152.Bell, H. 1. Jew.. and Ch,·i../irms in Egypl. London,

1924.BiI:tbcl, F. "Neue liter'adsche Funde in der Heidel·

berger Papyrussammlung." In ACles du V' CmlgresinlemalimlGl de papyr%gie, pp. 72-84. Brussels,1':138.

BiJhlig, A. Die grieehisehe/l Lelmwor/cr im sahidisclJe/lund bolmirisc/len Neuen Tes/amenl. Munich, 1958.

Brunsch, W. "Untersuchungen zu den gl'iechischenWiedergaben figyptischcr Pcrsonennamen." Enchu­ria 8 (1978):1-142.

Chaine, M. Elemenls de gralll/llaire dia/eclale eople.Paris, 1':133.

Fra.o,cr, P. M, Plolemuie: Alcxcwdrill. Oxford, 1972.Gignac, F. T. A Grammur of Ihe Creek Pclpyri of the

Romml o"d RYt0ntine Pcriod.~, Vol. I, Phorl%gy.Milan, 1976.

Kasser, R "L'idiomc de llachmour. ,. Bljllelin deI'blSlitlll frall(;ais d'urcheulugie urieu/ule 75(1975):401-427.

_---:. "fupression de I'aspiration ou de la non·aspimtiun i\ I'initialc des rnots Copto·grecs corTes·pondant it des mots grccs COlllmeno;nnt par {E)t-."BI.lle/in de la Societe d'egyp/ologie, Ceneve 3(1980a):15-21.

___. "Prolegornenes a, un essai de cla.~sification

systcm31ique des dialectcs Cl subdialectes coptesselon les critc"res de la phonctique, J. Principes ettenninologie." MUSCOll 93 (1980b):53-512. "... ,II, Alphabets et .~ystemes phonctiques." Museon 93(1980b):237 -97.

___. "Orthogmphe (sub)dialectale du vocabulairecopto·grec 3vant Ie VIII' sieclc de notre ere." M,,·sewn Helveliel/Ill 40 {I983):207-215.

Lacau, P. "Un Graffito cgyptien d'Ahydos ct'rit enICllrcs grccques." Dudes d,~ popyro/ngic 2(1934):229-46.

Mallon, A. Grammaire CUple, bibliographie, dm:~'/o·

ma/hie el voeabNfaire, 4th cd., rev. M, M31inine.Bcimt, 1956.

Montevecchi, Orsolina. La papirofogiu. Turin, 1973.Muller, C. D. G. Gnmdziige des chrisllich·is/amise:hen

Agyptcn vml der Ptolemaenei/ bis WI" Gegenwarl.Dllrlllstndt, 1969.

Percmans. W. "O\)er die Zweisprachigkeil imptolemfiischen Agyplcn." In S/udiell zur PaT'Yro·logie Imd aU/ike" Wir/sclraf/sgeschidlle, Frier/ridlOerlel tum aehlvgs/cn Gehurlstag gewir/mel, pp. 49-60. Bonn, 1964.

Plumley, J, M. All hl/rodl/clory Coplie Grammar(SahMic Dia/cel). London, 1948.

Prenux, C. I.e Monde hclJ.!nisliquc, /a Grece el {'Orient(323-146 avo l.·C.). Pads, 1978.

Ouaegebeur, J. "The Sludy of Egyptian ProperNames in Greek Tmnscription, I'roblems and Per·spectives." Olloma 18 (1974):403-420.

Rcmondon, R. "Problcmes du bilinguisllle dansl'Egypte [agide." ChroniqllC d'Egypte 39 (1964): 126­46.

SteindodT, G. Lchr/mch der koptischcl1 Grammatik.Chicago, 195 I.

Stern, l. Kop/isd1<: Grammalik. Leiplig, 1880.Till, W. C. KopJische Grammalik (saiaisdl/:r Diolekl),

mil Bibliographie, Le.lcslileke,r lmd Wiir/e",erzeich·lIiss/m. Leipzig, 1955.

--C' Koplische Diu/eklgr"mmalik, mit f.c.5cslikkellund Wiirlerblleh. 2J cd. Munich, 1961.

Vergote, J. Gramrnaire COpIC, Vol. hi, bl/roclu"lion,pho/l(:/iqlle eI phonologic, morpholugic syl1lhenlll./iqljc (stn/Clure dcs sbnamemes), partie synchru­Iliql.e. Louvain, 1973.

Weiss, H.·F. "Zum Problem der griechischen Fremd·und Lehnwtirter in den Spmchen des christlichenOrients." l/eliko/1 6 (1966):183-209.

ROlJQu'JlE! KASSE!R

ALPHABETS, COPTIC. Attentive study of thealphabet used in each of the various Coplic UJAU!CTS

and subdialects obliges one to recogni1.e that therewas not a single Coptic alphabet, :u; is uften be·Iieved, but several CoptiC alphabets (01', to pili it in aslightly dilferent way, several vatieties of the Copticalphabet). Certainly, if one eKamincs the Coptic lextslhemselves in their manifold vatiety, one find~ thatone of these alphabets, that of S etc., is employedalmost everywherc (it is that of almost 92 percent of

•

the local); il Is therdore comprehensible enough thatthe alph;abct of S .should practic>\lIy a.lways be called"the Coptic alphabet," without further explanation,while the alphabetic variety of B eiC. (alm(X'i! 7 per­cent) is only vcry seldom menlioncd, the existenceof the twelve Olher varieties (about I percent only)being entirely ncglct:tcd. However, all these fourteenalphabets. major and minor, will be accorded theplace to which they have 11 right herein.

II will he convenient to recall in the first placethaI each type of Coptic diak>t:[-whcther a dialectin the nanTIW sense of the term Qr a PROTQI>IAI£CT. a

Ml'.'iODlAUCT. a MlITAOIAuer. or even a solxlialect-isdelined lirst and foremost as a phonological system,\l'hill" morpho(phono)logy and rnorphosynlax inter­\'enc only secondarily in its definition (for want ofevidence sufficiently fn-quenlly 8ltesled).

Coptic has lK:en a dead language for liCveral cen·turics, and its demi5C preceded the beginnings ofCoptology as a modem discipline. Hence. CopticPHONOlOCY can only be known today through theorthography of the Coptic tellts that have survived. aI'ery small number' in comparison with the immensequantity of lhose that perished in the lempestuousand painful course of Coptic history: lhruugh lheirregular and syslemalic orthogmphy only (that whichw<: find in the tell1$ of "good" quality), and notthrough the irrcgullir and disordered gmphical man·ifestations lhat may be observed in all sorts of care'less and orthographically undisciplined copies..

Prudence certainly obliges one to ~mcmber thatthe analysis of a Coptic orthographic system is notautomatically the analysis of a Coptic phonological.system. One must always reckon with the possibility.lKlwever weak it may be, that the difference bet~nthe various Coptic alphabeu may be not only a dif·ferenee of quantity (phonemes and graphemes inmore or les,'i large numbers) but also. on some J)<1.r·tkular poinl. II dUrerence of quality (3 given graph.erne nmdeling a given phoneme ill one idiom. andthe same grapheme rendering another phoneme illanother idiom; or a given phoncme being n~ndered

by a given gl-apheme in one idiom and by anOlhergrapheme in another idiom). Howevcr that may be,if one lIlay sometimes doubt that such an originala1phabetK: system really allesu a particular Copticdialcct. it nonetheless remains that each particularCoptK: alphabetic system is a piece of evidence; andthis reality, although superficial in rdalion to ph0­nology. deserves to be recognrlCd as such on i1$ own(me alphabetic) level; thi, recognilion. in f3C1, is nochound to the phonological intcrpretation, sometimesuncertain, of the graphemt.'S that COlllJ)(lSe the alpha·beiS.

ALPHABETS, COPTIC 33

The uncel1ainly of this intcrpretation at any givenpoim often derives from a qu~ion of principle andfrom a mClhodological alternative of which onemuS! be very consciOIlS. Tn fact. the investigator whostrives to rediscover and analyze the phonologicalsystems of the Coptic dialects and subdialectsthrough their ol1hogmphical systems is soon con·strained to choose belwecn two preliminary workinghypotheses: each of these presents substantitlllldvan·luges. but even in the bellcr hypothesis. lhey I'emainlimited and weakened by important disadvantllgt.'S.

TIle firsl hypothesis consists in postulating a prioria phonological unity of the COplic language, a unitypractically absolule. In pushing this hypothesis 10 i1$elllreme cOIlSl.."quences, one would have to admitthat despite the ort!lographical appcanmces, litis lan­guage is by no means divick..d into II plurality ofdialects. The diffc~nces thaI orthography ~ms tomanifC51 would be only 5UperfiCial, or to put it sim·ply, the various sc:hooh. of scribes would make LL~.

In certain cases. of different gmphemes 10 cllprcssthe same phonemes. One should Ihen obsclve illCoptic not various di.. lccts but various "orthograph.ic codes" applying to a language th.. l is "one" andnOI divided on the phonological level.

This hypolhesis is very seductive because. overagainst the various eadier StagCli of the EgyptianInnguuge (apparently homogeneous because dialec­tal multiplicity does not appeal' in it. or practicallynOl), it sets nOt a group of Coptic phonological sys­lelllS but a single Coptic phonological syslem (0.... atthc vcry most. a group of systems wt difTer amongthemselves only very rarely and on details thai aretruly exceptional). It seems 10 be confinnl-d by thefact thut, if one compares wilh one another lhe dif·ferent ol1hographical fonns of the same autochtho­nOl.ls Coptic words, II appears evidcnt that the II. ofthe majority of dialects and tlte 1. of P rende... Ik/:lhe 11/ of the majority llnd the a of G ...ender lsI: lhe'I of the majolity and the l' of G likewise render If/:lhe; of P and B. the e of A and i, and finally eventhc X of B7 and G (see below) render 1'1./: the 6 ofthe majorily and the II, of P render 11,'/: llnd SO on.

However. the limils of the efficacy of this explana'lion are reached when one is faced with problemssuch as Ihese: when A in F eorresponds to r in S. thephoncme cannot be either 11/ or II'I uniformly for Aand r at the same lime; and likewise, when , in A

corresponds to ... in S ctc., the phoneme cannot beeither 1'1.1 or Ii! uniformly for , and ... at the sametime. By themselves alone. these exceptions provethat there is in Coptic a dialectal plurality.

The second hypothl'Sis consists in postulating thaIin COJltic, according to lhe unanimous intention of

34 ALPHABETS, COPTIC

the crc;tlors of ilS ldph:\bel, there is for eaeh pho­neme (or each combination of phonemes, shoulduccasiun arise; d, Ithl clc. below) a singlC' corre­sponding gr<lphe!lle tlHll can never sen'e 10 expressanother phoneme. This "law of exclusiveness" lhusdoes nut alluw uf :my plurulity uf Coptic alphabetsbased on a difference of phonological "qualily"; thisplurality can only exist a" a consequence of rhl!"quanlity" of the indissoluble phuneme-graphemeunities: cenain Coptic idioms would make use of theCoplic series lu the full (or nearly so), while otheridioms would content Themselves with a very dimin·ished series (luss uf Ixl or even lsi, Ihl, or lei, forexample).

Huwever. if this hypothesis give... vel)' satisfoctOl)'results in regard to F '" versus S clc. r or A ~ versusS etc. lij, for example, it seems 10 fail in other easesalready mentioned ahove: in comparing The differentOlthogmphical forms of lhe S<lrne Cuplie won.!, it isdifficult to seC' what phoneme P ;" could render ifnot Ikl <llli seems ellduded for solid reasons; d.Ka."ser, 1980b, pp. 244-48): in lhe S<lmc way, itseems unlikely that, corrcsponding rC'gularly to lij I~I

in B etc., the combinalion of gr<lphcmes C:l! in Gshuuld render IS1.1 rather than lsi; and when lhe q.of G corresponds 10 'I IfI in B ctc., would it beequivalent to Iphlrather than to IfI? Tire rigid appli­cation uf the 1:lw uf ellelusiveness would entail otherphonological solutions thaI would be bizarre anddifru.:ull to accept. One must then r-esign oneself to!lOme compromise between these two cxtreme hy­potheses, a compromise to be negOliated and dcter­mined f,'om case to l.:a.~e.

One panicularly troublesome alphabetic fact(above all, in cunsequence of the second hypothesisand iL~ law of "exclusiveness") is lhe USl.: of (appar­ently) tbe same grapheme to ellpress lWO differenlphonemes. When this phenomenon coincides withthe opposition nf two Coptic idioms, as wilh S 6 Il.:lversus n 6 leh/, one may allempt to explain it byl"efening to Ihe divergenl principles applied by twoschools of scrihes belonging 10 two difrerent culturalambiences. BUI wh:1l is one to say of this ambiguitywhen it appears within one and lhe samc Copticor1hogmphieal systcm (and probably idiom)?

Thus, in P (compar-ed to S etc. in the onhographyof their l.:ommon vocabulal)') K is assuredly Ikl inthe CoplO-Greek words, but il is lei in the autoch­lhunuus Coptic words. (It is diflicult to imagine th:1\P, by some palalalization, or "d:tmping," applied tothe Greek word!;, should have syslematically 1'1."

placed by lei all lhe Ikl in its CoplO-Greek vocabu­lary,) One sees the same ambiguity in G, where onefind:> <I> buth in the Copto-Greek words (for Iphl)

:md in the autochthnnous COptic words (for' Ifl,which cuuld. huwever. at least ]m:ally, have becomethe al1iculation of of even in Coplo-Gr-eek). Tire sameconfusion is manifest in the Dublin /.5 (d. below), J

(sporadically). and F9. where x appeal1i both in theCopto-Greek words (for Ikh/) and in lhe nutochlho·nous Coplic vOl.:ubul:try (for lei); there is fW1her­morc lhe pr'Oblern of lhe usc uf x evcn fur 1111 orthat of the invC'l.,;e use of x for x Ikhl in someCopto-Greek words in LS. (The rd:uion of x lei :tndx Ikbl or 1111 is probably of another order, or at leasltuo subtle and eumplcll to bc summarily expoundedhere.) Finally, a similar- ambiguily nppcar'S in fI7 andin some L(, tellts (d. Ka"xer, 1984-1985), where thegrapheme .,. is both the "normal" Coptic t Ipsl andthe "normal" Coptic .~ Iti/. These are tellts n\lestedby tnanuseripts nearly all par1icularly ancient: F7 isThe langullge of lhe bilingual I'llpyms No. I of 1·lam­burg (Cuptic and Greck, end of third eentlll)'). /0'9 isthe Innguage of Coptic glosses in :I manUSl.:ripl in theChester Beatty collection (third century; d. Kassel'.1981a, pp, 101-102). J is the language of a Copticschnolbny's tablet (end [?] of thirxl cenIUI)'; d. ibid_,pp. 113-15). An unpublished papyrus in Dublin (ef.Knsser, 1984, p. 274) secms lu be eonlemporm)' withthe preceding two or scarcely Illuch later'; it containsJohn 10:18-11:43 and 12:14-39 in a variety of LSwith very panil'ulnr orlhogr-aphicophonulogiealcharacteristics (Ka~ser 198fb, pp. 27-29).

The following hypothetical explannlion could,howcvcr, 10 SOIllC l.:1I1l.:nt resulve these tliverse enig­mas, except for' lhe ambiguity of q. in G. One shoultlh:we in each instance, for two phonemes undoubted­ly different, not a single gmphemc considercd (ex­Cl.:pt for t) lIS of GreC'k oligin but two graphemes 10be distinguishetl from one anuther, the one uf GreekOligin, the other of demotic-two gl'llphernes dis­tinct in thcir origin but in which the autochlhonousEgyptinn sign h(15 gnldllally been su strongly intlu­l.:nced in its fOIll] by the Greek graphemc that it hasbceume pml.:lil.:ally identical to the latter (wbencethe confusions that ensue). In what fullows, ellceptfor special mention, references are made to duBourguet (1976, p. 75), where lhe dcmotic signs arcpresented in lheir "usual" forlll orl lhc left ILlld lhenin cer1nin of their "variants" on the light.

In P, the autochthonous K Icl could be der'ivcdf!"Om a sign fOl' 1;, lhe firsl uf the vari(lOts, resemblingu very "nallcned" K; this ambiguous usage, alongsidel<./kl in lhe Copto-Grcl.:k words, will have led 10 theusage in S of K (no longer';") for Ik/throughout, (lnd6 (no longer K) for Ie/.

In the Dublin LS. with J and F9, the autochtho­nous x lei could be descended frOIll a sign fur ~! the

fi~ of the .......rillnts (il has the look of a slightlyupturned x. of whkh Ihe first stroke. whkh in Greekgoes from top left 10 bottom righl. Is ncar the verti·cal and the Sl,.'Cond stroke is con.o;cqucntly ncar thehorizonlal); confusions betwLocn the x Ildll "nd thi!'ix Ie! will havc IL-tl 10 lhe gl'aphemc x being soonpn:fcITcd 10 it; lhis is alw descended fn.ull a sign for~. eilhel' the fmll usual sign (vaguely resembling an(\' the loop of which has been complclcly nllllencd)or lhe last of lhe vtllianls (resembling II bulging awith the rounded Plu1 "I the OollOin and Ihe twohorns al the top).

In f7 and wille L6 texts, lhe ." Ipsl L~ exactlyidentical wilh this grapheme as one sees it in lhecontemjlOl'ary Greek manuscripts, which "Iso makesit unfortunately almost idenlical with the autochtho­nous t Iti!, llo""lbitually considered as derived from ademotic sign (cf.. e.g.. Stcindorlf. 1951, p. 12; butsu also KaMer. 1984-1985); this ambiguity willhave inciled the Coptic scril,,:s 10 modify inlO t thegrapheme for Ipsl borrowed from lhe G~k alpha·

"',.With regard 10 lhe two 6 (the ~ Olle fo,' Icl and

the B etc. one for !eh/), one remains within lheautochthonous Egyptian zone, withoUi i'lletferencefrom the Greek alphllbcl. II is admined tlmt lhe 6!elderives from II demotic sign for k, the fin;t usual onc(which has lhe appcamnce of a., the circle of whichis \"el)' small, the stroke that escapes from it leavingal the sulllmit and Slrelching horizontally at length10 the right), The 6 !eh! could be descended fromthe demotic sign for !!,. the last of lhe V'...riants (theone lhat resembles a bulging a of which lhe round·ed pan would be at the bonum and the two homs althe top; d. abolle with regard to x and x for!c!; Ihesuppression of the lert horn could well yield a kindof 6).

As cnn he seen, this compl'omise obliSes one 10renouncc the thesis of lhe "ahsolute phonologicalunily" of lhe Coplic language; lhel'c nl"c then scvemlCoplic dialects. a fact lhal is inCOnleStahlc. BUI thiscompromise pl'Obllbly also ohliSes one 10 consenl 10some delmctlons from the hlw of cxclusivenes.~,

\\.'hich Oows from lhe seCQnd hypothesis; if (admit­ling the duality of K. x. t, and 6. above) one is to seeeach grapheme alway.;; rendering the same ph0­neme, it may come about Ihat a phoneme is ren­dered, according to the idiom. by tWO or even threedifferent graphemes, as with :&. and It r for /k!; ­and H for In{; .. and" for Ifl; x and x I- for !e!; It,I· and 6 I" for leI:' and -it for 1f</;!l. t. "nd x 2" forIxj. In Ihis last case, one mighl think of the inOu­cnce of a local Greek anicul"tion x Ix! rather thanx {khl and extending to the pl"Onunci"lion of the

AU'HABETS, COPTIC 35

Corto-Greck words in 87 "nd F9 (cf. also Ihe e\'enlll­ality of .. Ifl in C alx)\"e). There are Ihen in COplicnOl only sen:ral Coptic di"lo..,;;:ts but also sc\'t'1"31 Cop­tic alph"bets employed to render th(.'SC I13rious diu­lo..,;;:ts. lhe limits of the fidd of applic"tion of Ihesealphabets not alwaY" coinciding wilh thc phonologi.c,,1 inlel'dialeel:ll limits,

From Ihis pc11lpcelive, a search through tlte mostdiverse Coptic lex IS finnlly ends in tlte idenlifiealionof at leMl fOU11een different COplic alph"bels. Aswa.~ undedineJ at the beginning of this :lI1ide, lheyval)' considerably in their relative im]X>11ance if onetakes aCCllUnl of the number and the extent of thetCXl!! that employ each of them. One of lhese alpha­bets is supported by S. Ihe \'ehicular language of thewhole of thl." I13lley of the Egyp!ian Nile (the Deltaexceplcd); il was also utilized by a large number ofdiak.,;;:ts and subdialecl!! in the I13lley and even in theFayyUlll. AnOlher alphabet is supported by 8. thevehicular language of the Egyplian Delta, 111CSC an:.one mighl say. the "classic alphabets" of thc CopticI"nguagc, The olhcr alphabetri arc supported (mly bya small number (on occasion evcn by a lritllng num·her) of texIS slighl in extent and variely or ellen by (l

single small texl, the sole representative of an idiomwhose otigin,,1 ehumcter. on Ihe level of the dialeetand nOI simply on Ihat of lhe IDIOl.Cer. t'enlaitls open10 discussion: hence. one may call them, respective·Iy. '-marginal" and "vel)' marginal" alph:lbets.

An alphabet could be marginal fOl' vtllious rea­sons. It could be situ.'\t(.-d in lhe "preliminary histori·I."al margin" of Coptic lilcrary lifc: this would be oneof the I13rious alphabets crealed by way of t:55ay5 011Ihe time when the pionccrs of lilerary Coplie wereattcmpting. as individuals or in s"11I11 isolaledgroups. 10 forge Ihe instruments indispensable forthe rcali7.ation of their enterprise; some of these al·plmbCls would not h"ve obtained lhe r:tdhesion of aSOl;:ial or cultural group, SO that they would vcr)'quickly have becn abandoned, even by thcir fewp1lrtis.""IIiS. Or "gain. :m alphnbet could bc nml'ginalbecause il was desccnded from thc invenllve spiritof an individu"l or a small group living somewhaton the margin of the society that was eontclI1po......1)'

with them. and this al leas( on tm: cultural or even­tually the religious level; this alphabet would ha\"Ckno...,," only an extremely rcst:rictL-d diffusion tInd anex.iSlence probably all too short. Bul whethl."r "das­sic" or more 01' less "marginal:' all lhe Coptic aI­ph.'\bets thus attested by the texts of this languagewill be of inlerest for the researcher.

A synoplic view of lhe fourteen Coptic alphabetsmenlioned above will be found in Table I. Each oflhe alphabets is indicated eilhel' by 1111: unique dia-

36 ALPHABETS, COPTIC

Icct or subdialect that attests iI or by the principalidiom (language or diakct) that attests it. These arc:is follows:

(I) P ("" a PROTQOtAU1T remarkably similar to ·pS,the latter being the tentatively rcconstnlctcd protO'­Sahidic idiom; d. OlAl...ECT p), 0.1 percent of thewhole Coptic textual surface.

(II) j (- pL, proIO'-Lycopolitan dialect; d. PRoro.OtAL£C1" and OIAlECT I), 0.01 percent.

(lin A clc. (- II, Akhmimic dialect. with i7 - p'~

all evolved protO'-Lycopolitan dialect; d. AKHMIMICand PROTODIAlECT with OIo\lJ'..CT i), 0.6 percenl.

(IV) 8 ell:. ("'" 85, the "cla.~liic" and relatively lateBOHAIRIC language, commonly designated by B, withB4, the Bohairic dialect of "ancient" alles1a1ion, d.KasseL 1981&, pp. 92-93; 84 lexts puhlished inHusselman, 1947; Quecke, 1974; K<!sscr, 1958, onlyp. 53 of Papyros Bodmer Ill), in all, mOt'e lhan 6.5pereenl (cf. I,ANGUAGIi.tS), COPTIC).

(V) S etc. (- S properly SO called, the SAllllJlC

language, with [a] thl.: variety of the Fayyumic dia·lect showing lambdacism most recently allcsted. F5[cf. fAYYUMIC]; [b) V5, the lea.~t widely nllesled of thetwo mesodialeclal varieties of the Fayyumic dialectwithout lambdacism (d. FAYVUMtC); and [c) the threesubdialcctal varielics [or even dialects entirely apart,according to Funk, 1985) of I... the LYCOPOUTAN orLyco.OIOSl"OUTAH dialect), :is a whole nearly 92 per­cent.

(VI) M eiC. (- M properly so called, the MESOKEMICdiak-ct. with [a) the cryptO'-Mcsokemic mesodialCCIcalled dialect W (published in Hus.sclman, 1962]; [b)V4, the most widely attested of the two mesodialec·lal varieties of the Fayyumic dialect without lambda·cilim; [c) F4, one of lhe two varieties of theFayyumic dialect with lambdacl~m and of ancientatteslation (F4 and f7]; and [d] the 1\VQ very smallmcsodialects K and K7(J) [d. Ka.~~er and Satzinger,1982]), in all 0.7 percent.

(VII) 87 (d. Ka.'lSer, 1981a, p. 93; subdiak'Ct), alittle less lhan 0.001 perccnt.

(VIII) L5 (Dub.) (- the particular subdialect of theJohanninc &-agment LS in Dublin), 0.015 percenl (cf.I.YCOPOUT"N or lYCQ·llIQSI'OL!TAN).

(IX) f7(the PAYYUM1C subdialect n, of ancient at­testation; cf. Kassc:.r, 1981a, pp. 91-100), 0.05 per·cenL

(X) F8 (a very small subdiale<:t; cf. Kassel', 19813,p. 101), a lillie less lhan 0.001 percent.

(XI) } (very small subdialect; d. Kassel', 1981a, pp.113-15),0.001 percCPlt.

(Xli) G (- D1Al£CT (; or mcsodialeet [?); cf. Crum,1939; Kassel', 1975, and 1981a, pp. 102-103),0.005percent.

(XIII) F9 (yery small sobdialec:t; d. Kassel', 1981a,pp. 101-102), a little more than 0.0005 percent.

(XIV) H (- OIAlE.CT II or mctadialect; cf. Kassel',1966; 1975-1976; and 1981a. pp. 104-112), 0.03 per·cent.

In the synoptic table (Table I), everything hasbeen grouped around S etc., thc allestation ofwhich, in relation to the olher Coptic idioms, is "'cryamply preponderant (92 percent). This is why (al.ways with the cXccplion of P ~ /kl and - I~r; SI..'C

below) Ihe order of the phonemes (or I.:ombinationsof phonemes, should occasion nrise), along with thealphabetic order corresponding to them, i~ first ofa1l1he one habitually found in lhe Coplic t;;t"lllllllHU-S

and lexicons (or dictionary clement...) Iimiled toSahidic, s: (I) Fin;t comc lel1eI'S of Greek origin. (2)Nexl come lel1ers of detllotil: ul'igin (10 lhe eXlenllhat they are in u...e in $; with regard 10 the debntedorigin or 'r, sec below; ror details on the origin orlhese non·Creek grnphemes, see AtPII"'ltrrS, OU> COP·

TIC). A~ regards the alphabetical order of the CopticlelleTS of demotic origin, it should be mentionedhere that in some ancienl doc:umenl~ showing thatpart of the Coptil: alphabet, 6 is placl.:d beforc .x(e.g., tlall, 1905, pp. 35-36; Krall, 1888, pp. 129-30;question raised in di Bitonto Kassel', 1988). (3) Lastcome various "supplementary" phonemes (or com­bination... of phonemes), almost all descended fromdemotic (on their pn.-cise origins, sec ALPHABI:"1S. OlD

come): deriving from pre-<:Optic Egyptian, ALEPH ­fl is a CRYFTOPHONEME in S, :is elsewhere in Coptic(exct.'Pt in P), and is therefore not rendcn.'tI by anygrapheme exclusiyely its own; also of autochlhonousOIigin and pre-Coptic, 1t>I, lxi, and eventually alsoIc~1 were abandoned in S CIC.. but have been pre·served in other dialecl~ or protodialec:ts; Ichl i.'l spe·cific to the Bohairic domain (8 etc. and probablyalso 87); Ivl is the charactetiSllc or a lendency thatresults in various manifestalions or CopticrIIcl<\Jinlecls. In regard to the particulm'ly vllriedgraphemes thai conespond 10 1hese supplementaryphoneme..., several will be noted in P that can beJescribed as Old Coptic (so .L 1'1, !I 1..1, in aJditionto the 6 /kl and - In/, already mentioned above,,which rt.'Spt.'Ctivdy in P alone replace the K and N ofGreek origin); olhers (~ and 6, or • and I with theirdiacritical :r;igns, which, respectively, mark them offfrom, and oppose them to, .. alld ~, which them­selves belong in group 2) are simply of demoticorigin; others fmally (I and x) arc, or Kem to be,Greek graphemes, but here play an unaccUSlomedrole.

As regards the correspondence between thc pho­nemCli and the gr.tphemes of the \'arious Coptic al·

phabcts. it will be nOled thai in this are.. the situa·tion in Coptic i'l very similar 10 that in Greek. Thll.'l.brOlldly spc;.lking. for each Coptic alphabel Ihere is acorresponding phonemic series madc up of either(most frequently) isoltlled phonemes (e.g.. la/. l'rJ/.Ig!. etc .• the alfricRlc 1t.1 - [IS] also being consid­ered lIS a "single" phoneme) or of combinations ofphonemes (jdl/, Ib/. Iph/. Ik1l/. Irs/. lli/)·

Taking inlo account the total phooemic series re­sulting from the addition of all Ihe particular phone.mic ~riC5. each of which con-espond'l to one of thefourteen individual Coplic alphabets. one may estab­lish. from case to case. lhe existence of one or an·other of the five following possibilitif,.'5:

(I) In a given Coptic 3lphabel. a given phoneme(or combination of phonemes) is rendered by agmpheme Ihal. according to a syslem of correspon·dence usual to this lllphubet as well 3$ to (almost)the whole of the Coptic dialects and subdiale<:IS. ispeculiar 10 it and liCrvf,.'5 for ilS exclusive use: thus,fur example, in 5 ele..... for Ia!. III for fbI elc.• 9 forIthl elC.• K for fkl etc. (It will be nOled in thisregard that. according to rules which cannot be setout here lcf. Kasser. 1981). /if may be renderedeilher by the grnpheme , or by the combination 61.

although the same I or (II may equally render Ij/;and if luI is almost always rendered by lhe combina·lion or. nevertheless Iw/. normally rendered by theMme combination. often sees iL'l initi;tl 0 diS<lppcarin ol1hography after .... e. or H. which conveys theillusion of a correspondence y - Iw/). This type ofpeculiar and exclusive phonemc-grapheme relation­ship is in the Coptic alph;:.bcts the mOS! normal andwidely favored possibility; e\'ery graphcmc that at·taches to it-and likewise the eventual combina·tions (e)t or (o)y-is tben nOled. jll.~1 as it is in thesynoptic table herein.

(2) In a given COplil,; alphAbet. a given phoneme isrendered by a given grapheme that. according 10 asystem of con-e~pondenceusual to this alphabet. al­though not to the uthel' Coptic dialeCl~ and subdia·lccts. is peculiar 10 it And serves for its exclusive use:thus. for ex.ample. K for II,;I in P, Although eve,y·whell' else K - /k/; 6 for It.hl in S, although every­where else 6 = Icl (bUI see earlier discussion of lawof exclusiveness). This possibility is not the most

normal. but it remains very widely favored; thisgrapheme is then also noted. just as it is In thcsynoptic table.

(l) In a givell alphabel. a given combination ofphonemes, instead of bciTIg rendered by the gr.lph·erne usually peculiar to it. is rendered by each of thegraphemes thai habitually render each of the com·ponents of this combination: thus n. and not t, for

ALPHABETS. COPTIC 37

Ilil (one could likewise imaginc T~, and nol 9. forIlh/. etc.). This possibility. scarcely less widely fa·vored than the preceding onell, il' markf,.-d by Ihesymbol a in Ihe synoptic table. the complemcntarye~planalions being fuund in the commentary fulluw­ing the table.

(4) In a given alphabet. a fnll1kly more problemat­ic ca'lC. the proper and exclusive grapheme for agi\'Cn phoneme is missing: the phoneme. however. isrepuled to be prescnt despile this and is dlen .$iIid 10

be a CRYnlWIIONf.ME. This is. by definition. renderedby a grapheme or combination of graphemes each ofwhich is nomlally approprialed to the proper andcxclusive use of ::another phoneme: for example. in 5o - 101 in normal usage. and yet one may nOle thesecond clemcnt of 00 (nol O.L) - lu'l in gmphicvucalic gemination (cf. ALEPH): or 'lgain in G. G - lsIand :t - 17.f in normal usagt. and yet c:t (not lI,l) ­Is/. This possibility is indicated by the symbol -l­in the cOrTeSponding box in lhe synoptic tablc. thecomplementary explanations being found ill thecommentary following the table.

(5) Finally. in a given alphabet the absence of lheusual grapheme (cl. point I) signifies the absence ofIhe phoneme concerned; this pm.'libility. the onlyone that is really and fully negalive. is marked by anempty shaded cell in the synoptic lable.

In this table. ;lIly grnpheme betwcen parcnthesesis of considerably reduced ustlge (because it eOITC'spunds to a phonemc thtlt is itself also of greatlyreduced usage) in all of the dialeci. subdialcct, orgroup of idioms concerncd (lhus. e.g., the S()llanll'IV. Il"fI/. II'fI. Irl in B etc.). This obviously dlX-'5 notapply 10 (e) in (0)1 or to (0) in (o)y, which signify.respectively. the simultanCOl.J$ existence of spellingsin 61 and in I, in oy and in y. A.ny grapheme be·tween square brackell' has had 10 be reslored. takingaccount of the prob3bililies (the lextual base beingtoo narrow. lher-e has been no occasion fol' thisgnlpherne 10 appear). In line ll, "gem." ~ignifics

graphic vocalic gClllination (see CliMINATION. VOCAL­

IC). a way of rendering rI in writing a,<; acryplophoneme and nOl a phoneme in the ordinarysense.

For convenience,S has been assigned the functionof a norm or standard; in relation to it thc followingphonemic and alphabetic differences will be noIed(uansfomlalions and simplifications):

uncs 2a and 32: J. G. F9, H r. fbI > Ivl (cf. I. 26):D7 also has .. Iv/. but could well have preserved II

fbI simultaneously.Line l: H r 181 > K Ik/.Line 4: 11 A Idl > T It/.Line 5a: He leI> II I!/.

38 ALPHABETS, COPTIC

Line 6: /-1 z I'll> cis/.Line 10: P)../kl > S etc. «(111([ ,ill the Olher Coplic

dialcels CIC.) II. Ikl (d. I. 29).Line 15: H 0/01 > lD lu/.Line 20tl: H Y Iyl > II Ie/.Line 21: See line 26.Line 22: Sec lines 28 and 35,

Line 25: F9 (ij /AI > cis/.Line 26: J, F9, H 'I IfI > t Ivl (ef. l. 2;1); G l'

probably IfI rather than Irhl (ef. l. 21).Line 28: With regard to x (1-5 Dub. ;md J. F9) for

oX, sec discussion above.Line 29: P II. lei > S CIC. (and all Ihe other dia·

lects. Cle., which have this phoneme) G lei (cf. L 10);note, however, Ihat in J lllld F9 6 lei> II. Ik/; F7 Glei> x Ie/.

Line 32: See line 2a.Line 34: P 9/...1 and alsu i ~ 1...1 > S dt:, (nnd L

and all lhe olher Coptic dialects, etc.) (I,l I~/.

Line 35: P (d. B) fJ Ixl and [llso i (d. A) with J 8

Ixl > S eiC. (and L and all Ihe olher Coptic dialeels,etc., except A eiC. and 8 eiC. with 87 and G) ~ Ilt/:note 87, G x probably Ixl mlher than Ikh/.

II is difficult 10 know wilh any precision litenames of the letters of lhe valious Coptic alphabets,Thuse proposed by modem ur semimodcm gr.tm­mal'ians all rest lll)()n relalively late tmdilions andrepresent nut lhe primitive furms but furms alrendysomcwhllt modified (Stem, 1880, p. 7; Mallon, 1907,p. 7; Steindorff, 1930, pp. 6-7, nnd 1951, p. II;Plumley, 1948, p. I; Won'Cll, 1942, pp. 314-27, lak·en up in Till, 1955, p. 40). To provide n useful,

TAUtE I SYlloplic Table of Coptic Alphabels wilh Commell/ary••P I A D S M 87 L5 F7 " J G P9 "ele. ele. Cleo eiC. (Dub.)

1 M , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,2, /b • • • • • • ? • , ,2b !'II , • • , , UJ , (II3 IgJ ,. ,. ,. ,. e e le] e e e e e (e]4 Idl A A A A A A (AI A A (AI (A] A (AI5, lei , , , , , , l'j , , , , , ,5b /01 , , , , , , , ,

", 1'1 , , ((l)

6 14 , , , , , , (,] , , [z] [7.] , [7.J7 le/ " " " " " " " " " " " " " "8 /thl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [01 0

9, Ii! (6)1 (6)1 (6)1 , {6)1 (6)1 , (ti)1 , , (6)1 , , {ell9b Ijl (U)I m (1))1 , (e)/ (6)1 , (6)1 , , (tj)1 ,

'" {6)1

10 1\1 ~ K K K K K K K K K K K K K

I Ia 111 , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,lib !!! , , , 1'1 , , [(>.)] , ? ? ? ,12, Iml H H H H H H H H H H H H H H

I2b Iml H H H (HI H H (H) H (HI ? ? ? [M~]•

13' Inl , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,13b I~I

, , , ("I , , I") , 1"1, , ? ttl?)

13, Inl B , , ("I , , ("I , ("I ? ? ? [tl?]•

14 Iksl , , , , , , (,] , (,j ('I (,] I'] (,] ('I15 foI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 1,1 " " " " " " " " " " " " " "17, M r r r r r r r r r r r r r r17b M r • r r (fl r r (fl r ? ? ? ? [p?)

18 lsi , , , , , , c , , , , , , ,19 1'1 T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

200l? 1,1 y y y y y y (y] y y (y] y y (y]20b lui oy oy oy oy oy oy oy oy oy oy oy oy oy oy

ALPHABETS, COI'l'IC 39

I (co" I cd)I T.bl Ie (A/labelS ','Cor,\,8lF. 1 S, , yllOp IC • •• op IC p' • ·'" , mmell ary 111111

p I A 8 S M 87 1.5 F7 F8 J G FY Hetc. eiC. ele. elC. (l>Ub.)

'00 Iwl (olY (olY (olY (olY (o)y (o)y I(o)y] (olY (o)y (olY (o)y ",. (olY (olY11 Iphl .; .; .; .; .; .; .; .; .; .; (';1 , [';J .;11 /khl x x x x x x (x?1 x? x x x, , x? x13 1..1 t 't) t t tit t 'tl t tit 'tl t [tl t It'14 1'1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • •1S '" • • • • • • • • • • l~?] -I- •26 III • • ., ., • ,

"., • •• ltl

2? /hI , , , , , , , , , , ,26 1'1 x x x x x x x 0 x x 0 -1- 0 x29 1'1 [;;] , , , , , , ,30 Iti! " t t -t- -t- t -t- .,. ., - ["'71 - • •

31 /'1 QJ gem. gem. gl·m. gcm. gem. gcm,

31 M , , , , •33 Iccl 51 (-J • - - {'"?] - "34 Ie) I2l Iiil35 '" " [!J [!J " x [!J x36 Ichl • ['I ,Total 35 J2 31 31 30 3. 3. 2. 2. 2. 26 24 24 25

• , •Lines 2lI-2b. In phonoiOllY. fbi has lhe: \-al..., ofa eonsonalll (~"Oleed).and !ttl ofa \"Ow<:l (!!Onanl) (cf. Kass."r. 1981 c). In 8 elc. (andalso in ,..S. ,..... he:re inclu<lcd In S eLe. ,,00 Metc.• rt'Spe'Clively) ~I > I~I (l'S. F.. also /ybl in spo-eific cast'$); in f7 If!I > IJb/.Iib/./ool ur Irb/. each in ~iI;ecastS.' ,

liM'S Sa-Sb: lei lOOie. lal ;!Olook:.Lines 9a-9b: In phoooIocy. /if has tnc \"ll!..., of a \~I and fJ/ ul" cumon.:ull (glide). With regan/to lhe: nil"" ul di:aI.,.,ta1 or

itlbdW«laI orthov:tphy lhal (litiS<: Ihe wrilinl ul a ()f" I for iii or fJ!, d. ICas6cr (198]) and. more detailed "nd I~ ~e"",llc.

Qued:e (1984).UnC:ll II a- lib: In phonology. III has lhe value or a consonant (voiced). III of a """"" (sonanl). (d. Ko!s5er. 1981 c). If 11/ > 1t.1/.

AI"",",I al",...". in 8etc. (amI "Iso e~erywhere in FS and f·4. ncre Included in Setc. and M eIC.• r6pecli....ly)./11 > I;AI. In 1'7/11 >/:tl/or Iil/. each in specific cases (Ihen: Is no poMibilily of Iol/); bUl in F9/l/ln CTATOA' (- [~TfJA""'''''J). lroubled. •

Unts 1201-120: III phonology,/ml hM Ihe vatu<: of" enmonanl (\'t>lccd). and Im'l ufa ~owcl (soI"l.1nl) (d. Kll$6Cr. 19IIle). II Iml >. ,Itm/. In 8 elC. (and also Fj and F4. here indu<lcd In S etc. lind Metc......'Spcelivcly)./ml mosl oflen > l:>nl/: in n Im/nlOSlfrequently> lan'l. fin.I, "r/oon/. each in specific cases. ' •

Unes ll;a-Ilc: In phonology./nl has lhe ~alue of a eonsonanl (voiced). and Inl and Inl "f a vowel (sonant. II'!" being "I Ihebellinning of a syllable and FOl"mln& a syllable with 11K: eon50mml lhul full""", il; cr. Kwr. 1981<:). It In/ > Itni. In IJ CIC. (andIn 1'5 and N. hcre included in S ele. and II-! ele .• respccllvely). 1111 most uften > I..m/; in n /nl m061 f..cquenlly > lanl or lin/.each in specific CMCS (nOl lonl appllrcntly: cf. I. J1).· ,

Line 14: H very of'e" , Iks/ > IlC Iks/.Lines 1711-17b: In phunulngy./r/Illt. lite "lIlue of a consonanl (voiced), lind /rl "ra ""wei (st",am). JJ II'I > I~r/. tn n ele, (and In, ,

f5andF4. he,.., Inclu<k...J ill S dc.and M ele .. rcsI>celivcly)./rl 111%1 orten> lar/: in F7 Ir/ "''''I fn:quenlly > /arl or /Ir/. each in, ,~I"'clfic ca<t'1l (Ihere Is no posslbllily of fori). Would fV have had, /r/lhe,.., lClll has ... II/?

Unes 2Ob-20e: In phonoloilY. lui has lh" vaIn" oh vowel, and Iwl "r'a consonunl (Illidc)~ l¥Y or y for Iw/.Une 22 (d. I. 28): Lj (Johannlne f....Il"'enls in Dublin). J, amJ F9 'cguludy n.'Plaee oX by a,.; that is vel)' probably c'Iu;~alenl ltl {?:I

and nO! /kh/; however. Ihere is in ,...ri<:Jus COlllo·Gred words a,.; that Is prob.1bly cqul~.. lcnl 10 Ikh/. 1"hcse lwu lyJ>C'l of,.; maylUll be in ongin Ihe same gr-..ph...l1e (demolie ,.; "" Greek x).

U..., 2]; Fl (nol 874) and al:so some LIJ leJlS (under S Cle.) wnte t ror 'Yo 11 \"Cry often i'/psl > IIC IpIl/.Litle 25: C cz ve,y probably CQul\":Ilent 10 If.!.Line 23: C T:t \"C1)' prob3bly equlvalenl 10 Itl.Une 30: FlI, [RJ, G, 1-"9, II n 111/; t ill gClIcroilly considered a grapheme ofdemotic ongill (d.• e-3-. Mallon. 1907; Stei"durlI. p. 12):

bul other illierpretations ~maill possiblc (d. Kasser. 1984-1985).liM' ]1: Gcm.signlfio lhat fils rendered not bya gr;l.phemcofilSown but by Ihcsexond detnenl.,(alll3pliic I'OCalic Il'minalion

(we AI.Utl); in bet. in Papyrus Bodmc:r VI, the sole wilness of1'• .L fI aleph tends 10 be replaced by Il''''. (ahhouVt a,lnc ~mclime -/ry' lel\ds to be n:pIaced by .LIJ.

Une ]]: The compendium" If, le~1 (1 Coptic autoc:hlOOnow wonIs PII, _ S 60. then; PfN • S 'lfGl. Ihe prolcplic panicle) alsoappc:al'$ in somc Coplo-(;...,.,k wonk. in which il'" alnlOSl always l.'<Iulvalent 1010.' as in Inc G...,.,k ma.nuscripu (thus P.v<.ocaiKD-,ju:;t. 85 percenl nllnc ea.<cs;~,6u<D«><rir"'l.juSl:icc. 86 pen::enl ofIhe~; R'\.l1Cf .D'np. althuugh. tine e3St';life... ,,<pU>.. barKJai,..,. one casc!).

40 ALPHABETS, COPTIC

rather standardi7.ed example. even if hs value maybe open to deb'lte. here <Ire pre5ented liTht thenllUles of the Coptic lellers as in Plumley (1948).with some adaptation: while Plumley writes thenames in Coptic lcucrs. they llt·C hcre tmnslitcr;lted,generally in accordance with I'lumley's system ofphonetic equivalents (e = short c: e .. long e: 0 '"

short 0; 0 '" long 0; eh .. guttural eh ns in GenlltlnWc/lnllac/ll. army; g' = hnrd g): ), .. alpha, 1\ .. b~ta,

r' ... gamma, A. ... dnlda. 6 '" ey (or ei), Z zeta, H ,.,

hllta, 0 .. thllta. 1 ,., yOta. K ,., kappn Inudl' (orlawda), M '" me, N '" nco ~ '" hi. 0 '" ow. n '" pi, P =l"l'l. c .. semma. T '" tau (or' taw). y .. he. t .. phi. x.. khi, l' '" psi, (J) .. o. (1,1 .. shai. " .. fai, !.l .. chai. ~

'" hori. X = j.mjia (or j.mjya), G = g(y)ima, t '" ti.Coming closer to the testimony of the texts in

their (quite confusing) manifold witness. sec also,fwm v"rious perio<.]J; and in Coptic. the names ofgraphemes noted by Crum (1939). a list completedhere by that of the nllmes of autochthonous Copticleiters thai appears at the end of Ihe (unpublished)Bodmer papyrus of the Acta Pauli (fourth-fifth cen·turies. L5. siglulll hercarter Bod.): ), .. ),....t),. II ,.,

IItlT), (or 1I1}t..),). I' = r),HM),. A. = A.),i\A), (or A.X"}t..),).

e .. (Jl (or (;Ie). )! = )!IIT), (or )!tT)" Z),1'),), H .. (2)H1')'

(or lilT),. 2),TfI), 0 .. OIlT), (or 1)11')" 001'0). I ,., IWT),

(or 101'),. l),yA.),). I(. ,., 1(.),11I,), (or 1(.),1I),1. .... '" >,),yA.),

(probably for ....),l'.A)" or ),y>.)" >.0....0). M = Mil (orM6. MI). /'/ ... /'/6 (or NI). ~ 'll. 0 '" oy (or 0). 11 '" Ill.

r .. rw (or ~ro). C ,., CtlHM), (or CyMM),. elM),. CRM),),

T ... ny, y = ~O (or yo, y),), t '" tl, x = Xl. l' = 1'1.W = (J) (or loy, way); then (1,1 .. lI,I),1 (or (1,161; Bod.(I,Illll[I]); " ,., '1),1 (or '101; Bod. <11101); !J ,., !J.\I (or !.lei);~ .. 20pl (Bod. 2Olpm); x ,., XJ.tu:'), (or XO/,/X(l; Bod.prob"bly x)''''~. but x.\/'/X!~ not excluded); G ,.,

GlM), (Bod. 6f.!!':If.! very uncerlain); '1' ... Bod. +m.(I) So far as the Coptic grapheme.~ of Greek migin

are concerned. one will probably be closer lu theirprimitive names if one names them in the Greekfllshion: ), ,., ulpha, Po .. bela. r .. g:lmma. A. ,., delta.tl .. epsilon, Z = zeta, .. = elo, e = theta. 1 '" iota. "= kappa, .l. = lambda. M co mu, /'/ .. nu. ~ .. xi, 0 ..omicron. n .. pi, P ,., rho, C .. sigm:l, T ,., tau. y =up.~ilon. l' '" phi. x .. chi, l' .. psi. (J) ... omega.

(2) fur the Coptic graphemes of demotic odg!n inS. the prefer'Cnce her'C is for tire following fonns (inthe S vocalism): (1,1 = sh<li, 'I .. fai, ~ .. hOli, x ..jonja. G = gima (easier 10 pronounce Ih"n the moreexact k(y)ima), t '" ti.

(3) for the supplcment"ry graphemes, lipan from!J. their names areJ,Jnknown. so that il was necessary10 ere'lte them (if possible in relation with theirwrilLen fOlm, which is certain because it elln beobserved. rather than with their phonological value.

which is sometimes less cenain): L !k! .. -.:eloidkappa; - !nl' ,., hyphen·shaped nu; x !l:.! (for x) '"

•chioid janja; ..I. /'! = reverscd.tau·shapcd aleph; '" =kai compendium; 9 = 9·spiraled grapheme; OJ ­crossed shai: !:J '" khai or ~ai; a .. balTed hod; G !l:.h!in B etc. = aspiraled jllnja.

RIUUOGRAI'HY

Bilonlo Kassel', A. dL "Ostrac"" scolastici copti a DeiI'cI Gitlil.... Aegyptus 68 {I988):167-75.

Bourguet. P. du. Grammaire fonctionnelle I:t progresosive de Ngypt!e'/ demOlique. Louvain. 1976.

Cr'lm. W. E. A Coptic Viclionory. Oxford, 1939.Funk. W.·I'. "How Closely Relaled Arc Ihe SubakJ,·

mimic Dialects," Zei/sclrrif/ fiir iigyp/isehe SpraclreWid Aitertumskllllde 112 (1985):124-39.

Hall, H. R. Coptic and Greek Tex/s of Ihe Chris/larrPeriod from OSlrokll. SIe!ae ele. in the Brilish Ml,se·/lin. London. 1905.

Husselman, E. M. "A Bohairic School Text on Papy·rus." loumal of Near EasU'm Sllldie$ 6 (1947):129­51.

__ . The Gospel of 101m ill f'ayumie Cop/ie (p.Mich. II/V. J52f). Ann Arbor. Midi .. 1962.

Kassel'. R. Papyrus Bodmer 111. cl'ongile de lean etGenese I-IV,2 en bQhai"rique. cseo 177 -178.Louvnin. 1958.

_,--_. "Dialectcs, sous·dia1ccles ct 'dialccticules'dans l'Egypte copte." Zei/schrift fiir iigyp/ischeS"rache WId AllerWlIIshmde 92 (1966): 106-15.

--C" "L'Idiome de 13achmoul'." Bulle/ill de {'filS/i·

IU/ fralH,ais d'arche.ologie orienlale 75 (1975):401­27.

_-" "A propos de quelques caractclistiquesolthographique.~ du vocabulaire grec utilise dansles dinlecles H et N." Orien/illia wvrmiensiuPeriodicil (Miscellanea in honorem Josephi Vcr·gote) 6-7 {I975-1976):285-94.

__ . "Prolcgomcnes a un essai de clao;sificationsystematique des dialectes et suhdialectes copte.~

selon les crilcl'es de la phonelique, I. Principes etlermiMlogic." Mrmiorr 93 (1980.1):53-112." ... ,11. Alphabets ct systCl11CS phonetiques." Muston 93(198%):237-97. " .... 111. Systemes orthographi·ques cl categories dialecl,,1cs," Museun 94 (198Ia):91-152.

__ . "Usages de la surligne dans Ie P. Bodmer VI,notes additionne1Je.~." Bllllelill de Iii Sociert,/'e.gyptologie, GelltiVe 5 (198Ib):23-32.

__ . "Voydles en fonelion consommtiquc. con·sonncs cn fonction vocaliquc. ct classes dephonemes en copte." Bulleti" de 10 Societed'egyp/ologie, Geneve 5 (1981 c):33-50.

___. "EI ou I pour !i! ou !j! dans les dialectescoptcs." Bulletin of Ihe Ameri"mr Sociely of Papy'rologis/s 20 (1983):123-26.

__ . "Orthographe et phonologic de la variete

subdialeelale IYl,;opolitainc des tClItcs gnostiqllCscopt~ dc Nag Hammadi:' Musiull 97 {I984):261­312.

___ "I'si en ti et ti pointe dans Ie P. Biling. I deHambOllrg," Billie/iII tie lu Societe d'egyplolo/:ie,Gtll~ve 9-10 (1984-1985):135-40.

Kasser, R., and H. Sat;dnger. "L'ldiome du P. Mich.5421 (Irouve a Karanis, nOI"d·eo;t du Fayoum)."Witntr Ztilschrill liir die Kmrde ties MQ~tmfufldes

74 (1982):15-32.Krall, J, "Reste koplischer SchulbueherliterJ.tur."

Mil/hei/IIllgt" Q'/$ der Sammltmg dcr PapynlS En·htr<.og Raintr 4 (1888):126-3S.

Mallon. A, Grammaire cople, uvec bibliograplrie,chreMomarhie et vocabulairt. 2nd cd. Heinl!, 1907.

Plumley, J. M. All httrodllctnry Capric Grrmmrar(Sohidic Diu/ectJ, London, 1948.

Ouccke, H, "Ein altes bohairi:>cho FrJ.gment desJakobusbriefes (P. Heid. Kopt. 452)." Orielllalia 43(1974):382-93,

--::-: "ZUr Schreibung \/On i/j in der koptischenBuchschrift." 1.0 S/Ildicn lJl Sproche Wid RtligiollACfPlelU, Vol. I, Sprllcht, lJI Ehrell VOII WoIfhllr1Wtslt'ldorf jjberrticlll \1011 stifle" Frelllldell .lIIdSchil/em, pp. 289-326. COllingen, 1984.

Stcindorff, G. KopliS€he GrllJllJIIlllik, mil Chresto­IIIlllhit, W;men'trteicJ",is lIm/ LileruflIr. Berlin,1930.

...,"'.. Lel,rlmch der koptischell GrOJl/J11lllik. Chicago,1951.

Stem. L Koplisdre GrommlJ/ik. Leipzig, 1880.Till, W. C. Koplische Graltlltlalik (saidisclter Dillfekl),

mil Bibliographie, f.ese.ttilckclI wrd Woncrvcncicll·"isseI!. Lciptig, 1955,

Worrell, W. H, Coptit' TexIs i'l lire U'liversily 01 Michi·g~rl eollcc/iotl. Ann Arbor, Mich., 1942.

RODOlJ>HE KAssER

ALPHABETS, OLD COPTIC. The group oftcxts dcsigmdcd ow corne does not represent alinguistic unity, but on the contmry a motley collec·tion of essays spaced out between the fit"lit 'IIU.!fourth centuries A.ll. Chronologically thcy most frc·quently pr'l;ldatc littm1)' Coptic, but wmetimL'S,though rarely, are l,;ontcmpomry with its beginnings.Howcver tlnlt may be, through their char.lcter asisolated essays tentatively made, not very systematicor even pmetically unsystemlltic, and through theirlanguage, in which one observes a significant pro·portion of prl.'-Coptie features, they all logically rep'resent a slage prior to th:;at of litemry Coplic. includ·ing prolo-Coptic. The laller is already syslemalic andmakes its appearance in the form of PROTODtAu:crs,many of which have disappeared without leaving any

ALPHABETS, OLD COPTIC 41

traces, but two of whleh are nevenheless attested hyCoptic documents lh.'lt have sunrived the vicil;situdesof the tormented history of the Copts: I)[AI.ECT I(pml:QoLyeopo1itan) and OlAUCT P (an alphabeticallyand phonologically an:haic idiom that often lookslike what can be known about a proto-Sahidic, tenta·tively reconstructed and considered immigrant intolhe TI1cb.'ln region).

In the$C cin:umstanecs. it is scarcely surprisingthat each of the Old Coptic leXL~ :utesL~ a panicularCoptic alphabet (or if onj,' prefers, a panicular varie·ty of Coptic alphabet). It is reasonablj,' to supposethat all these alphabets included all the Coptic let·ters of Greek origin-a supposition and not a cer­tainty, bt:cause these very ancient texts are gj,'nerallytoo shon for each to attl'St all these Greek graph·emes. But thcre is no reason to suspect that one ormore of these Greek letters was s)'!'tem:lIically elimi­nated in one or anothcr of thl'SC alphabets, as is thecase in the Coptic alphabet of a late text likc thatwhich atlests D1AI.F.cT H (cf. AIJ'I{ABEn). COPTIC, synop­lic table), which lacks the r, A, and ~ of Greekorigin. All these Old Coptic alphabets induck-d Iet­tcrs of demotic origin, generally in largcr numbersthan the Coptic alphabet properly so called, especial­ly since the varielies of Old Coptic h:wc at the samelime a number o( phoncmes more significant thanthat of the Coptic idioms (the evolution proceedinglogically toward phonological and gr-J.phical simplifi.cation and hencc toward a reduction in the numberof phonemes and graphcmes), The synoptic table ofOld COI)tic alphabeL~ (Table I), which includes allIhe Old Coptic texis lhat arc available and makes useof letlet"li of demotic origin, will make this evident.

The sigla for the texts used in this ta\)le are a~

follows: &:h1ll. - the Schmidt Papyrus (first-sl.'t:ondcentury): Hal', - thc London Horoscope Papyrus(firM-second century): Mich.• the Michigan Horo­scope P\lpynlS (second centuly): Mun, - the Munichl'apyms ([schoolbook?J second century): Oll. - theEgyptian Oxyrltynchus Papyrus (second century):Mum, - the two mummy labels in Berlin (secondcentury): Mim, - thc Mimllut PlIpynls (third centu·ry); DMP _ the Demotic Mllglcal Papyrus of Londonand Leirlel1 (third-fourth century): Par, I - firstnon·Greek section of the Paris Magical Papyrus(founh century); Par. 2 - second non·Greck section(bllt not the third and lasl) of lhe Ptuis MagicalPapyrus (fourth century),

To the alphabets of these ten lexts properly desig·nated Old Coptic are added here, by way of compari·son, those of the only two protodialel,;u sunriving inCoptic, P and i. because both have preserved eenainphonemes of Old Coptic that later disappe:lred in